Preview
FIIIDBYB4X
FILED
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BARNO. 137591)
tjlong@orrick.com
2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Superior Court Of Califoniiia,
400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000
3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497
Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 - •- - H/27/2017
4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 By: , Depi ty
5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BARNO. 285379) Cafiu Mumbur:
stephanie.lee@orrick.com 34-2017-00210550
6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
7. Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855
Telephone: +1-213-629-2020
8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499
9 Attomeys for Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC.
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
13
ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560-
14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS
situated.
15 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT. 35
16
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT
17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CONFERENCE STATEMENT
Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50,
18 inclusive, Date: December 8, 2017
Time: 10:30 a^m.
19 Defendants. Dept.: 35
20 Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017
FAC Filed: June 29,2017
21 Trial Date: None Set
22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all
others similarly situated. Complaint Filed: August 1,2017
23
Plaintiff,
24
25
26 HEALTH NET, INC., a Delaware corporation;
and DOES 1-50, inclusive.
27 Defendant.
28
OHSUSA:767725203.5
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Health Net") submits the following Case
2 Management Conference Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference set for
3 December 8,2017 at 10:30 a.m.
4 I. CASE SUMMARY
5 Plaintiffs initially filed their wage-and-hour class and representative claims against Health
6 Net in separate actions. The Court, following a stipulation between the parties, consolidated and
7 assigned the cases for all pvuposes to this Department. Specifically and collectively. Plaintiffs
8 allege that Health Net failed to provide them and putative class members with meal and rest breaks,
9 pay them all hourly wages, properly calculate their regular rate of pay and, derivatively, failed to
10 provide them with accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay them all fmal wages and engaged
11 unfair competition. Health Net denies that PlaintifFs can meet the requirements to certify a class
12 and that Plaintiffs and the individuals they seek to represent are aggrieved. Health Net also disputes
13 Plaintiffs'claims on the merits.
14 IL PROCEDURAL fflSTORY
15 A. The Spears Matter
16 Plaintiff Spears is a former customer service representative for Health Net. For
17 approximately two years, she worked at one of Health Net's call centers located in Rancho Cordova,
18 Califomia. She filed her putative class action complaint against Health Net on April 5, 2017,
19 purporting to represent approximately 4,800 ciirrent and former non-exempt Health Net employees
20 in CalifomiafromApril 5,2013 to the present. On or about June 29,2017, Plaintifffiledher First
21 Amended Complaint ("FAC") adding Private Attomeys General Act ("PAGA") allegations. She
22 alleges that Health Net did not properly include "cash" received by her and putative class members
23 who waived certain coverage under its health and welfare benefits plan in their regular rate of pay,
24 that Health Net did not include other "bonus" payments in their regular rate of pay, and that Health
25 Net failed to provide them with meal and rest breaks. Health Net filed its Answer to Plaintiff
26 Spears' FAC on August 9,2017 denying all of these claims.
27
28
OHSUSA:767725203.S \
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 B. TheArana Matter
2 Plaintiff Arana has held various non-exempt and exempt positions during his employment
3 with Health Net including, currently, Call Center Systems Analyst I. At all times during his
4 employment, Plaintiff Arana has worked at one of Health Net's call center locations in Rancho
5 Cordova - the same one at which Plaintiff Spears worked. Plaintiff Arana filed his Complaint
6 against Health Net in this Court on August 1, 2017. He purports to represent:
7 (1) "Non-Exempt Class: All persons employed by Heath Net . . . and/or any staffing
8 agencies and/or any other third parties' who worked in a call center in hourly or non-exempt
9 positions in California;"
10 (2) "Exempt Class: All persons employed by Health Net.. . and/or any staffing agencies
11 and/or any other third parties in Califomia as a Business Analyst, Systems Analyst, Contact Center
12 Analyst or Analyst;"
13 (3) "Rounding Class: All persons employed by Health Net... and/or any staffing agencies
14 and/or any other third parties in Califomia whose hours worked were affected by [Health Net's
15 alleged] rounding practices;" and
16 (4) "UCL Class: All Non-exempt Class, Exempt Class and Rotmding Class members
17 employed by [Health Net] in Califomia."
18 Collectively, Plaintiff Arana purports to represent approximately 260 additional current and
19 former exempt employees of Health Net with the job titles containing the word "Analyst." He
20 alleges that Health Net failed to provide him and other putative class members with meal and rest
21 breaks, failed to pay them for all hours worked due to its alleged roimding practice and for not
22 compensating for time pre- and post-shift time spent logging in and out of their computers, and
23 improperly calculated their regular rates of pay by failing to include nondiscretionary bonuses and
24 shift differential pay. Plaintiff Arana also alleges that Health Net misclassified him and certain
25 others as exempt. Health Net filed its Answer on September 6,2017 denying all of these claims.
26 ^ On or about October 3,2017, Plaintiff Arana served Health Net with his proposed amended
27 complaint. However, Health Net thereafter received a copy of the "Notice to Filing Party -
28
' No staffing agencies or third parties have been named as defendants.
OHSUSA:767725203.S "^ '
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Retumed Documents" from the Court noting that the Court was unable to process Plaintiff Arena's
2 proposed amended complaint. Health Net has not, to date, been served with a revised proposed
3 amended complaint from Plaintiff Arana.
4 C. Consolidation
5 On October 11, 2017, pursuant to the stipulation of all parties, the Court consolidated the
6 Spears and Arana matters for all purposes, assigned the matter to this Department for all purposes,
7 and assigned the case a new case number. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy
8 of the October 11,2017 Stipulation and Order Regarding Consolidation.
9 m. PLEADINGS
10 Following the Court's consolidation of the Spears and Arana matters, counsel for Health
11 Net initiated meet and confer discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding their pleadings.
12 Specifically, Health Net's counsel requested that Plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint to help
13 streamline the litigation going forward. As Health Net's counsel explained, it is diffic\ilt to
14 understand how the parties will smoothly litigate this case as one matter when there are two
15 operative complaints at issue. This is especially the case given that the two, complaints allege
16 overlapping claims involving overlapping subclasses covering overlapping periods of time.
17 The complications arisingfromthis overlap have already presented in the context of written
18 discovery. For example, both Plaintiffs have sought the identities of putative class members and
19 the parties have agreed to the use of one opt-out notice. However, given the ambiguity that has
20 resulted due to the overlap in subclasses, the parties have not been able to reach an agreement as to
21 who, exactiy, should receive the notice. See Section V.B. below. Having one consolidated
22 complaint that defines the putative classes for this onfe consolidated action only makes sense.
23 With respect to motion practice, a consolidated complaint will also streamline matters - not
24 only for the parties but also the Court. For example, should Health Net determine that this matter
25 is suitable for disposition on summary judgment must it bring two separate motions?^ Given the
26 overlap of claims, subclasses and periods of time described above, it would seem that the answer
27
28 ^ As Health Net notes below, it believes that Plaintiff Spears' and Plaintiff Arana's regular rate and
rounding claims are susceptible to summary adjudication.
OHSUSA:767725203.5
-3-
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 would have to be "yes." Otherwise, how will the parties and the Court be able to determine whether
2 any given cause of action should be dismissed in its entirety?
3 This quandary is even further exacerbated should this matter survive stmmiary judgment
4 and proceed to trial. If the parties themselves have become confiised by who is included in the
5 putative class, then how is a jury to understand who are in the putative classes and who are not?
6 Issues presented by the overlap aside, there are other practical reasons why Plaintiffs should
7 file a consolidated complakit. As Health Net's counsel also noted during the parties' meet and
8 confer, consolidation would permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to clarify their pleadings.
9 Specifically, Plaintiff Spears' FAC is vajgue and ambiguous with regard to her regular rate claim
10 and Plaintiff Arana states in his Complaint that he purports to represent employees Health Net does
11 not and has not ever employed.
12 Notwithstanding coimsel's meet and confer discussions, Plaintiffs elected not to file an
13 amended complaint. Health Net proposes consideration of this matter at the Case Management
14 Conference and requests that the Court order Plaintiffs to file a single complaint consolidating their
15 claims.
16 IV. HEALTH NET'S CONTENTIONS
17 A. Class Certification
18 Health Net contends that Plaintiffs will be unable to certify a class, or any of the proposed
19 subclasses. This case involves a complicated patchwork of alleged subclasses and certification
20 theories attempting to sweep in thousands of putative class members in hundreds of different job
21 titles over the course of over four years during which Health Net has undergone a shift in ownership
22 and, as a result, change in certain relevant policies and procedures. Adjudication of Plaintiffs'
23 claims on a class-wide basis is simply untenable.
24 For example, with respect to the putative subclass of non-exempt employees, at all relevant
25 times. Health Net maintained legally compliant policies regarding hourly compensation, recording
26 of time worked and breaks taken, provision of meal and rest breaks, calculation of employees'
27 regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation, payment of wages at termination and
28 provision of wage statements. Individualized inquiries are necessary to determine whether any
OHSUSA:76772S203.5 ' 4 "
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 employee was not provided compliant meal or rest breaks or premiimis or properly waived them,
2 was due unpaid wages including overtime, received correct wage statements and/or was injured by
3 these wage statements, and/or did not receive all wages due at termination. This is especially tme
4 given that putative class members worked at different locations, for different employers, under
5 differenttimekeepingsystems, in a plethora of different positions with varjang job requirements,
6 under different supervisors and under different working conditions - e.g., even Health Net's two
7 call centers vary in services provided and employee responsibilities depending on such things as
8 supervisor preferences and customers serviced. Thus, the circumstances of Plaintiffs' employment
9 when they were non-exempt employees of Health Net differfromthose of other putative class
10 members. Further, the circumstances regarding Plaintiffs' timesheet and timekeeping records
11 dating back to when they were employed by Health Net as non-exempt employees evidence
12 individual differences, including whether they properly recorded their hours and whether and how
,1
13 they followed Health Net's reasonable policies and procedures. To the extent Plaintiffs failed to
14 follow Health Net's timekeeping policies and procedures, they cannot represent employees who
15 did. In fact, in the matter ofShaunetta Eddings v. Health Net, Inc., Central District of Califomia
16 Case No. 2:10-cv-01744-JLS-RZ, the plaintiffs sought to certify meal period and off-the-clock
17 claims brought on behalf of the very same call center employees as Plaintiffs seek to represent here.
18 The Court there refiased to certify these claims for reasons that will likely drive the analysis in this
19 case.
20 Moreover, as to the putative subclass of employees that Plaintiff Arana claims was
21 misclassified as exemjpt, class certification is likewise inappropriate. For example, the work
22 actually performed by Plaintiff Arana as an exempt Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given
23 week varies greatly - not onlyfromthe work actually performed by other Call Center Systems
24 Analysts and other members ofthe "Exempt Class" he purports to represent, but it also varies week
25 by week even for himself For example, the work Plaintiff Arana actually performs as a Call Center
26 Systems Analyst I in any given week depends heavily on such factors as the project on which he is
27 working, how many employees he is supervising on the project, who he reports to for the project,
28 whether he has multiple projects going on at once, and so on.
OHSUSA:767725203.S ' ^ '
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 In terms of the type and substance of work actually performed in any given week, members
2 of the "Exempt Class" vary significantiy. For example, since Plaintiff Arana works in a call center,
3 his overarching duties include making recommendations for and executing improvements to call
4 center policies and procedures. He also serves as a subject matter expert for the call center by
5 researching and helping to address root causes of escalated issues and enstiring timely resolution.
6 Moreover, he takes the lead on various call center projects, identifies requirements for new
7 processes and procedures, and makes recommendations for system enhancements. By contrast, for
8 example. Business Analysts who work in the current G&A Claims Administration department are
9 generally responsible for analyzing claims that have been escalated to the Legal Department for
10 purposes of evaluating the significance, level of exposure and correct outcome of claim
11 adjudication. This process entails reviewing individual claims and making recommendations on
12 the outcomes of the disputes, which are supported by the individual Business Analysts' findings,
13 analysis and data. Business Analysts in this group are tasked with understanding and interpreting
14 the specific terms of the contract at issue in order to make a determination of whether a claim has
-15 been processed correctly, and identifying any discrepancies that explain or help resolve the
16 escalation of the matter to Legal. Suffice to say, work actually performed by members of the
17 "Exempt Class" in any given workweek varies greatly.
18 In addition to these variances, if any member of Plaintiff Arana's "Exempt Class" did not
19 spend at least half his or her workweek performing exempt duties, whether that employee's
20 performance was consistent with Health Net's realistic expectations also necessitates an
21 individualized inquiry.
22 These are just some of the reasons why Plaintiffs cannot meet class certification
23 requirements.
24 Health Net suggests that the Court set a deadline for class certification motions that is five
25 months away.
26 B. Merits
27 Certification issues aside. Plaintiffs' allegations are meritless. For instance, Plamtiff
28 Spears' regular rate claim - premised on her theory that "cash" received by her and other non-
OHSUSA:767725203.S
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 exempt employees who waived certain coverage under Health Net's health and welfare benefits
2 plan were improperly excludedfromtheir regular rate of pay - is baseless. In fact, these payments
3 were properly excluded from employees' regvdar rate of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(4); see also
4 29 C.F.R. § 778.215. Plaintiffs' other stated groimds for unpaid overtime - namely non-inclusion
5 of nondiscretionary bonuses and shift differentials in their regular rate - are similarly baseless.
6 Indeed, during the relevant time period, the only bonus payments not included in non-exempt
7 employees' regular rates of pay were discretionary. By contrast, all nondiscretionary bonuses
8 payments (and shift differentials) were included. Thus, Plaintiffs' regular rate claims are
9 susceptible to summary adjudication and Health Net intends to file a motion promptly to dispose
10 of tiiem.
11 As for Plaintiff Arana's rounding claim, summary adjudication is also appropriate for the
12 simple fact that Health Net does not round its employees' recorded time for purposes of generating
13 paychecks. Should Plaintiff Arana persist with this claim. Health Net wiU file a dispositive motion.
14 C. PAGA and Manageability
15 For the same reasons outiined above. Health Net contends that Plaintiff Spears is not an
16 aggrieved employee and caimot, therefore, seek to represent others imder the PAGA.^ Moreover,
17 Health Net maintains that any trial of Plaintiff Spears' PAGA claim is unmanageable. To that end,
18 Health Net anticipates bringing a motion challenging Plaintiff Spears' representative action
19 allegations.
20 V. DISCOVERY
21 A. Health Net's Proposed Discovery Plan; Phased Discovery
22 Plaintiff Spears and Plaintiff Arana have separately propounded written discovery on Health
23 Net. Specifically, Plaintiff Spears propounded:
24 • 14 Requests for Admission;
25 • 25 Requests for Production of Documents;
26 • 26 Special Interrogatories; and
27
28 ^ As mentioned above, while Plaintiff Arana attempted to file an amended complaint alleging
PAGA claims, the Court rejected his filing.
OHSUSA:767725203.5 -7-
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 • One set of Employment Law Form .Interrogatories.
2 Plaintiff Arana propounded:
3 • 15 Requests for Admission;
4 • 31 Requests for Production of Documents;
5 • 2 4 Special Interrogatories; and
6 • One set of Employment Law Form Interrogatories.
7 Not surprisingly in light of the overlapping allegations, some of Plaintiffs' respective
•8 discovery overlaps. This notwithstanding, and pursuant to the agreement reached with Plaintiffs'
9 counsel following meet and confer discussions. Health Net will have responded substantively to all
10 class certification-related discovery by the time the Case Management Conference is held."*
11 Just by way of example, as to Plaintiffs' meal break claim. Health Net will have provided
12 its policies governing meal periods in response to Plaintiff Spears' Request for Production No. 7.
13 And, Health Net will have provided a description of its policies and procedures regarding the
14 provision of med breaks in response to Plaintiff Arana's Special Interrogatory No. 14. However,
15 Health Net will not have responded substantively to Plaintiff Spears' Special Interrogatory No. 19
16 seeking the total number of meal period premiums paid to putative class members or Plaintiff
17 Arana's Special Interrogatory No. 17 seeking the total dollar amount in meal period premiums paid
18 to putative class members.
19 Health Net maintains that the latter seek data unrelated to whether any class should be
20 certified, and requests that the Court issue an order phasing discovery on Plaintiffs' meal and rest
21 break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims.^ Health Net believes that bifurcating discovery
22 - limiting thefirstphase of discovery to class certification-related issues on Plaintiffs' meal and
23 rest break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims - will streamline discovery efforts and
24 ultimately save all partiesfromengaging in costly merits-based discovery because Plaintiffs will
25 not be able to satisfy the requirements for class certification on these claims. Indeed, many courts
26 ^ As to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims, however. Health Net will have provided merits-
2y related discovery responses by the time the Case Management Conference is held ia anticipation
of its forthcoming summary adjudication motion.
28 ' Pursuant to stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel
deadline to December 15, 2017 so that the Court may mle on this issue.
OHSUSA:767725203.5 -8-
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 recognize the economic benefits of bifiircating discovery and issue orders accordingly per section
2 2019.020(b) oftiie Code of Civil Procedure.
3 B. .gg/fl/re-^gj/Notice
4 As mentioned above, both Plaintiffs sought contact infonnation of putative class members
5 in their written discovery to Health Net. Health Net agreed to provide such information following
6 notice to putative class members of the disclosure and the opportunity for them to opt out, and
7 Plaintiff Spears agreed to cover the cost. Unresolved is the content of the notice. Despite Health
8 Net's counsel's multiple efforts to schedule a meet and confer telephone call with all counsel, such
9 a call has not occurred and all parties have not been able to discuss the content.
10 Plaintiff Spears cut short meet and confer opportunities by filing a "Motion for Order for
11 Opt-Out Privacy Notice To Be Sent To The Class Members" ("Motion") on November 16, 2017.
12 Curiously, she filed her motion in Department 54 before Judge Cadei, even though this matter was
13 assigned to this Court on August 1, 2017, which was later confirmed by the Stipulation and Order
14 signed by all parties and entered by the Court on October 11, 2017. See Exhibit A (reflecting
15 assignment of this matter "for all purposes to Judge Alan G. Perkins, Dept. 35").
16 Procedural matters aside, logic dictates that this Comt should hear the Motion since it is
17 managing this case. Indeed, Health Net sees no reason why this issue cannot be tackled at the Case
18 Management Conference.^ Health Net believes that Plaintiffsfilinga consolidated complaint (see
19 Section III. above) will solve the "impasse" that Plaintiff Spears claims to need resolution in her
20 Motion. For example, with regard to the language of the proposed Belaire- West Notice identifying
21 the recipients. Plaintiff Spears proposed sending the Notice only to:
22 CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES
2- EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
BETWEEN APRIL 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT
24 See Exhibit B.
25 If she has her way, however, it appears based on the phraseology of Plaintiff Arana's
26 Complaint that the entirety of the "Exempt Class" will not receive the Notice. Health Net fiirther
27.
28 * Health Net anticipates filing and serving its Opposition to the Motion on December 5, 2017.
Health Net will provide the Court with a courtesy copy of its opposition brief upon filing.
OHSUSA:767725203.5 -9-
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 maintains that the opt-out procedure should only occur once in this matter for many reasons, the
2 least of which is that the burden of undergoing the process twice (or more) completely undercuts
3 the efficiency drivers behind consolidation in the first place. In fact, the parties have agreed that
4 one notice makes the most sense. See, e.g., Exhibit C. To that end. Health Net believes that the
5 appropriate recipients of the Notice are:
6 CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES
- EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA., BSC.
BETWEEN APRIL 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT
8
AND
9
CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES
^0 EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNLV, INC. AS
,, BUSINESS ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, CONTACT
CENTER ANALYSTS AND ANALYSTS BETWEEN APRIL
12 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT
13 Unfortunately, when Health Net's counsel pointed out this issue in meet and confer
14 correspondence, Plaintiff Spears' counsel's only response to this quandary was to offer the
15 following non sequitur: "If it tums out the class is broader than the category as we have identified
16 it, we will revisit the mailing at that time. The motion is attached." iSge Exhibit D. In fact, the
17 putative classes encompass a broader number of individuals, as is obvious when one looks at the
1g Arana and Spears complaints.
19 VI. MEDIATION
20 Health Net is amenable to mediation after the parties have engaged in some additional
21 discovery and motion practice.
22 VII. MOTIONS
23 As mentioned above, Health Net proposes that the Court set afive-monthdeadline for class
24 certification motions to be filed. Health Net intends to file a motion for summary adjudication as
25 to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims by the end of this month.
26
///
27
///
28
OHSUSA:767725203.5 " 1^
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 Health Net reserves itsrighttofileother motions as it deems necessary and appropriate as
2 the litigation moves forward.
3 Dated: November 27,2017 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
4
5
TIM0THY J ; L O N G
6 Attori^eysjbr^efemdant
HEALTH NETtJFCALIFORNLA,
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA:767725203.5 - 11 -
DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business
3 address is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000, Saacramento, CA
4 95 814. On November 27,2017,1 served the following document(s):
5 DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT
6
on the interested parties in this action by placing tme and correct copies thereof in
7
sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows:
8
9 Norman B. Blumentiial Phone: (858)551-1223
10 Blumentiial, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Fax: (858) 551-1232
2255 CaUe Clara
11 La Jolla, CA 92037
12 Setareh Law Group
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
Beverly Hills, CA 90212
14 "
15
16 I am employed in the coimtyfromwhich the mailing occurred. On the date
17 indicated above, I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing at thisfirm'soffice
1g business address indicated above. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for the collection
19 and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that
20 practice, thefirm'scorrespondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on
21 this same date with postage thereon fiilly prepaid in the ordinary course of business.
22
23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the
24 above is tme and correct.
25 ; Executed on November 27,2017, at Sacramento, Califomia.
26
27 ^ -r^'f^^CcrA. yy^ ^ pi^cx-
Patricia M. Heath
28
OHSUSA:767097510.1
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
Exhibit A
1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BARNO. 137591)
2
tjlong@orrick.com
ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
FILEOj
400 Capitol Mall
3 Suite 3000
Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 OCT 1 1 2017 •
4 Telephone; +1 916 447 9200
Facsimile: +19163294900
5 By D.Lashley, Deputy Clerk :
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379)
6 steiphanie.lee@onick.com
ORRICK, I^RINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP
7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200
Los Angeles, California 90017
8 Tel^hone: (213) 629-2020
Facsimile: (213)612-2499
9
Attomeys for Defendant
10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
11 •** COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS ON NEXT PAGE
12
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
13
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO
14
15 ANDREA SPEARS, an mdividual, on behalf CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560
of herself and on behalf of all posons
similarly situated. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
16 JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT 35
17 Plaintiff,
STIPULATION AND ^ O m S E U l
ORDER REGARDING
IS CONSOLIDATION
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a
19 Califoniia Corporation; and Does 1 through Complaint Filed: April 5,2017
50, inclusive. FAC Filed: June 29,2017
20
Defendants.
21
22 TOMAS R ARANA, on behalf of himself, all CaseJ^a 34^01^00216^
others similarly situated,
23 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO
Plaintifis, JUDGE ALAN G, PERKINS, DEPT 35
24 Complaint Filed: August 1,2017
25
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC., a
26 Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50,
27 inclusive,
28 Defendants.
OHSUSA:767303413.3 ,
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDINO CONSOLIDATION
1 Notmaa B. Blumen&al (STATE BAR NO. 68687)
nomi@bamlawca.com
2 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK
3 2255 Calle Clara
UJolla,CA 92037
4 Phone: (858) 551-1223
Fax: (858) 551-1232
5
Attomeys for Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS
6
7 Shaun Setareh (STATE BARNO. 204514)
shaim@setarehlaw.com
8 SETAREH LAW GROUP
9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
9 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Phone: (310) 888-7771
10 Fax: (310) 888-0109
11 Attomeys for Plaintiff TOMAS R ARANA
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
.19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA:7673034133
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSEDl ORDER REGARDINO CONSOLIDATION
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2017, Andrea Spears C'Spears")filedagainst Health Net of
2 California, Inc. ("Health Netf") a Complaint for: (1) Unfair Competition, Bus. & Prof. Code §§
3 17200, et seq.; (2) Faihire to Pay Overtime Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§510, et seq.; (3) Failure to
4 Provide Accurate Itemized W^e Statements, Cal. Labor Code § 226; and (4) Failure to Pay Wages
5 When Due, Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203 (flie "Spears Complaint") in die Siqjerior Court ofthe
,6 State of California, County ofSacramento (this "Court?0, CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560;
7 WHEREAS, on June 15,2017, Spears amended the Spears Complaint to add a claim under
8 Califomia's Private Attomeys General Act, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698 etseq. (tbe "Spears FAC");
9 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2017, Tomas R. Aiana ("Arana")filedagainst Health Net a
10 Complamt for: (1) Unfair Competition, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, etseq.; (2) Failure to Provide
11 Accurate Written Wage Statements, Cal. Labor Code § 226; (3) Failure to Timely Pay All Final
12 Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203; (4) Failure to Pay Houriy Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§ 223,
13 510, 1194, 1194.2,1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (5) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Cal. Labor Code
14 §§ 204,223,226.7, 512, and 1198; and (6) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Cal. Labor Code §§
15 204,223,226.7 (tiie "Arana Complaint") in this Court, Case No, 34-2017-00216685; and
16 WHEREAS, Spears, Arana and Health Net (collectively, the 'Tarties") agree that the
17 allegations made in the Spears FAC and the Arana Complaint (the "Pending Actions") mvoive
18 overlappmg questions of law and fact and should be consolidated pursuant to Civil Procedure Code
19 section 1048 in order to avoid repetitive trials, to prevent unnecessary costs and delays, to avoid
20 the substantial risk of inconsistent adjudications and to serve judicial economy.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Ill
28 III
OHSUSA:767303413.3,
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDINO CONSOLIDATION
1 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto, by and among their respective counsel of record,
2 hereby stipulate and agree, subject to flie Coint's appnvai, that flie Pending Actions be
3 consolidated.
4
5 Dated: .,2017 TIMOTHY J.LONG
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE
6 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
7
8
Stephanie Gail Lee
9 Attomeys &r Defendant
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
10
11 Dated: 12 September , 2017 NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL
Blumenflial, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik LLP
12
13
14 Nonnah B. Blumimthal
Attomeys for Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS
15
16 Dated: ^2017 SHAUN SETAREH
Setareh Law Oroup
17
18
19 Shaun Setareh
Attomeys for Plaintiff TOMAS R ARANA
20
21
22:
23;
24;
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA:767303413.3 -4-
STIPULATIOW ANP [PROPOSEDl ORMR REOARDINO CONSOLDATION
NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto, by and amongttieirrespective counsel of record,
hereby stipulate and agr^ subject to flie Court's approval, that flie Pending Actions be
consolidated.
4
5 Dated: 12=. .2017 TIMOTHY J.LONG
STEPHANIE GAIL LEE
6 Onrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP
7
8
Stephanie Gail Lee
9 Attomej^ for Defendanl
HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
10
11 Dated: _,2017 NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL
Blumentiial, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik LLP
12
13
14 Norman B. Blumenthal
Attomeys for Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS
15
16 Dated: -^eyvV iS' ^2017 SHAUN SETAREH
Setareh Law Gioiq)
17
18
19 Shaun Setareh
20 Attorneys for Plaintiff TOMAS R. ARANA
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA:767303413J .4.
STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED] ORPSt REOARniNO C(H«OLIDATION
1 ORDER
2 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT flie action entitied Ancb^ea
3 Spears, cm Utdividual, onbehalfofherself and on behalfofall persons similarly situatedv. Health
4 Net of Califorma, Inc., CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 is hereby consolidated withflieaction entitied
5 Tomas R. Arana, on behalfofhimself, all others similarly situated v. Health Net ofCalifornia, Inc.,
6 Case No. 34-2017-00216685.
7
8 Dated: P^rMmi^ I / , 2017
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
OHSUSA'7673Q3413.3 5-
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL
2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business
3 address is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los
4 Angeles, CA 90017-5855. On September 18,2017,1 served the following document:
5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION
6 on the mterested parties in this action by placing tme and correct copies thereof in sealed
7 envelope(s) addressed as follows:
8 Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Shaun Setareh, Esq.
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK SETAREH L A W GROUP
9
2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 907
10 La JoUa, CA 92037 Beverly Hills. CA 90212
Phone: (858)551-1223 Tel: (310) 888-7771
11 Fax: (858)551-1232
12 I am employed in the countyfromwhich the mailing occurred, On the date
13 indicated above, I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing at thisfirm'soffice
14 business address indicated above. I ara readily familiar with thisfirm'spractice for the collection
15 and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that
16 practice, the firm's correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on
17 this same date with postage thereon fiilly prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness.
18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the
19 above is tme and correct.
20 Executed on September 18,2017, at Los Angeles, Califomia.
21
22
23
24
25
:26
:27
28
OHSUSA:767387898:1
PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAtU
Exhibit B
NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HEALTH NET OF
CALIFORNIA, INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION
To: CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF
CALIFORNIA, INC. BETWEEN APRIL 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT
Two lawsuits {Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. and Arana v. Health Net of California, consolidated
case no. 34-2017-00210560) have been filed and are pending in the Superior Court ofCalifomia, County of
Sacramento on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees ("Class Members") employed by Health Net of
Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant"). This is not a lawsuit against you, and you are not being sued. The former employees
("Plaintiffs") make claims against Defendant for, among other things, failing to calculate the regular rate of pay and
compensate Class Members for all overtime worked, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, and failing to
issue accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, penalties and interest.
This correspondence is being sent to you pursuant to an agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and
Defendant. The Court does not endorse any of the statements contained herein. The Court has not rendered any
opinion as to the merits of this case.
The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class action on behalf of themselves and the current
and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant. The Court has not yet determined whether the
lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. Ifyou receive this notice, you may be a member ofthe
proposed class.
Plaintiffs' attorneys would like to have your address, telephone number and email address so they may
contact you to obtain your input as to whether the Plaintiffs' allegations are accurate.
The Parties have agreed that a letter be sent to you to determine if you would object to Plaintiffs'
attorneys receiving your contact, time and payroll information. You may elect not to provide your contact, time
and/or payroll information to Plaintiffs' attorneys on the grounds of privacy.
THEREFORE, if you object to the disclosure of your contact, time and/or payroll information to the
Plaintiffs attorneys, you must sign and return the enclosed (postage pre-paid) postcard to Health Net of
California Class Action, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box , Petaluma, California on
or before [One (1) Month from Mailing].
You have the right to contact the Plaintiffs' attomeys directly:
BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK SETAREH LAW GROUP
Nicholas De Blouw Shaun Setareh
deblouw(fl),bam lawl i .com shaun(g!setarehlaw.com
2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907
La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212
Telephone: (858)952-0354 Telephone: (310) 888-7771
Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109
Attomeys for Plaintiff Spears Attomeys for Plaintiff Arana
Please note that Defendant's attomeys, as representatives of Defendant employer in this matter, have a conflict
of interest with you as an employee and potential Class Member.
Exhibit C
Lee, Stephanie Gail
From: Shaun Setareh
Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 20T7 12:37 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail; 'Victoria Rivapalacio'
Cc: Long, Timothy J.; 'Norm Blumenthal'; 'Kyle Nordrehaug'; 'AJ B"; 'Piya Mukherjee';
thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com;
stacey@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie:
Thank you for the e-mail.
We have recently served our own discovery; which seeks the class list. I think it makes sense to send one
omnibus notice to the class.
As to whether discovery should be phased; I amfineto deferring that particular issue until after the status
conference.
1 presume that we will file one stipulated protective order.
Please advise.
Thank you,
s E T :/t E H
Shaun Setareh, Esq.
9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907
Beveriy Hills, Califomia 90212
Telephone: 310-888-7771
Facsimile: 310-888-0109
e-mail: shaun(S).setarehlaw.com
Intemet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttomev.net:
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 24,2017 5:08 PM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug
; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com;
scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Victoria,
Thank you for your message. Yes, Defendant will serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery it deems
appropriate at this juncture ofthe litigation. As to the issue ofthe discovery relevant to class cert'rfication versus merits,
we agreed to raise the issue with the Court at the initial case management conference on December 8, 2017.
Confirmed that Defendant agrees to continue Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to December 15, 2017.
Because, Shaun, you were not on this telephone call, still outstanding is the issue of coordinating discovery. This is
important, particularly with respect to the Belaire-West notice procedure. On that note, I will circulate a draft
protective order and edits to Plaintiff Spears' draft Belaire-West notice. However, we should discuss how we're going to
coordinate.
Regards,
Stephanie
Stephanie Gail Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles (v)
T+1-213-612-2374
Stephanie.lee@orricl<.com
orrick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio fmailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:45 PM
To: Lee, Stephanie Gail : Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com:
scott@seta reh law.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
Stephanie,
I write to confirm that we met and conferred this afternoon regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs discovery
requests.
Defendant offered to continue Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline from December 1, 2017 to December 15, 2017, a
week after the Case Management Conference. Defendant is in the process of drafting supplemental responses, but will
not provide a timeline as to when those will be provided.
Defendant will circulate a draft of a protective order and will return the opt-out notice reflecting any revisions it might
have. Plaintiff agrees to pay for the costs of the mailing.
Thank you,
Victoria
From: Lee, Stephanie Gail fmailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1
Sent: Tuesday, October 24,2017 9:57 AM
To: Victoria Rivapalacio : Shaun Setareh
Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug
: AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com:
scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com
Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc.
We can use this conference line: 1-877-211-3621; passcode 295938.
Stephanie Gall Lee
Managing Associate
Orrick
Los Angeles ®
T+1-213-612-2374
Stephanie.lee@orrick.corTi
orrick
From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@b
Preview
FIIIDBYB4X FILED 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BARNO. 137591) tjlong@orrick.com 2 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP Superior Court Of Califoniiia, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000 3 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 Telephone: +1 916 447 9200 - •- - H/27/2017 4 Facsimile: +1 916 329 4900 By: , Depi ty 5 STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BARNO. 285379) Cafiu Mumbur: stephanie.lee@orrick.com 34-2017-00210550 6 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 7. Los Angeles, CA 90017-5855 Telephone: +1-213-629-2020 8 Facsimile: +1-213-612-2499 9 Attomeys for Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC. 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 13 ANDREA SPEARS, an individual, on behalf Consolidated Case No. 34-2017-00210560- 14 of herself and on behalf of all persons similarly CU-OE-GDS situated. 15 Plaintiff, ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT. 35 16 DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT 17 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a CONFERENCE STATEMENT Califomia Corporation; and Does 1 through 50, 18 inclusive, Date: December 8, 2017 Time: 10:30 a^m. 19 Defendants. Dept.: 35 20 Complaint Filed: April 5, 2017 FAC Filed: June 29,2017 21 Trial Date: None Set 22 TOMAS R. ARANA, on behalf of himself, all others similarly situated. Complaint Filed: August 1,2017 23 Plaintiff, 24 25 26 HEALTH NET, INC., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1-50, inclusive. 27 Defendant. 28 OHSUSA:767725203.5 DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Defendant Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Health Net") submits the following Case 2 Management Conference Statement in advance of the Case Management Conference set for 3 December 8,2017 at 10:30 a.m. 4 I. CASE SUMMARY 5 Plaintiffs initially filed their wage-and-hour class and representative claims against Health 6 Net in separate actions. The Court, following a stipulation between the parties, consolidated and 7 assigned the cases for all pvuposes to this Department. Specifically and collectively. Plaintiffs 8 allege that Health Net failed to provide them and putative class members with meal and rest breaks, 9 pay them all hourly wages, properly calculate their regular rate of pay and, derivatively, failed to 10 provide them with accurate wage statements, failed to timely pay them all fmal wages and engaged 11 unfair competition. Health Net denies that PlaintifFs can meet the requirements to certify a class 12 and that Plaintiffs and the individuals they seek to represent are aggrieved. Health Net also disputes 13 Plaintiffs'claims on the merits. 14 IL PROCEDURAL fflSTORY 15 A. The Spears Matter 16 Plaintiff Spears is a former customer service representative for Health Net. For 17 approximately two years, she worked at one of Health Net's call centers located in Rancho Cordova, 18 Califomia. She filed her putative class action complaint against Health Net on April 5, 2017, 19 purporting to represent approximately 4,800 ciirrent and former non-exempt Health Net employees 20 in CalifomiafromApril 5,2013 to the present. On or about June 29,2017, Plaintifffiledher First 21 Amended Complaint ("FAC") adding Private Attomeys General Act ("PAGA") allegations. She 22 alleges that Health Net did not properly include "cash" received by her and putative class members 23 who waived certain coverage under its health and welfare benefits plan in their regular rate of pay, 24 that Health Net did not include other "bonus" payments in their regular rate of pay, and that Health 25 Net failed to provide them with meal and rest breaks. Health Net filed its Answer to Plaintiff 26 Spears' FAC on August 9,2017 denying all of these claims. 27 28 OHSUSA:767725203.S \ DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 B. TheArana Matter 2 Plaintiff Arana has held various non-exempt and exempt positions during his employment 3 with Health Net including, currently, Call Center Systems Analyst I. At all times during his 4 employment, Plaintiff Arana has worked at one of Health Net's call center locations in Rancho 5 Cordova - the same one at which Plaintiff Spears worked. Plaintiff Arana filed his Complaint 6 against Health Net in this Court on August 1, 2017. He purports to represent: 7 (1) "Non-Exempt Class: All persons employed by Heath Net . . . and/or any staffing 8 agencies and/or any other third parties' who worked in a call center in hourly or non-exempt 9 positions in California;" 10 (2) "Exempt Class: All persons employed by Health Net.. . and/or any staffing agencies 11 and/or any other third parties in Califomia as a Business Analyst, Systems Analyst, Contact Center 12 Analyst or Analyst;" 13 (3) "Rounding Class: All persons employed by Health Net... and/or any staffing agencies 14 and/or any other third parties in Califomia whose hours worked were affected by [Health Net's 15 alleged] rounding practices;" and 16 (4) "UCL Class: All Non-exempt Class, Exempt Class and Rotmding Class members 17 employed by [Health Net] in Califomia." 18 Collectively, Plaintiff Arana purports to represent approximately 260 additional current and 19 former exempt employees of Health Net with the job titles containing the word "Analyst." He 20 alleges that Health Net failed to provide him and other putative class members with meal and rest 21 breaks, failed to pay them for all hours worked due to its alleged roimding practice and for not 22 compensating for time pre- and post-shift time spent logging in and out of their computers, and 23 improperly calculated their regular rates of pay by failing to include nondiscretionary bonuses and 24 shift differential pay. Plaintiff Arana also alleges that Health Net misclassified him and certain 25 others as exempt. Health Net filed its Answer on September 6,2017 denying all of these claims. 26 ^ On or about October 3,2017, Plaintiff Arana served Health Net with his proposed amended 27 complaint. However, Health Net thereafter received a copy of the "Notice to Filing Party - 28 ' No staffing agencies or third parties have been named as defendants. OHSUSA:767725203.S "^ ' DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Retumed Documents" from the Court noting that the Court was unable to process Plaintiff Arena's 2 proposed amended complaint. Health Net has not, to date, been served with a revised proposed 3 amended complaint from Plaintiff Arana. 4 C. Consolidation 5 On October 11, 2017, pursuant to the stipulation of all parties, the Court consolidated the 6 Spears and Arana matters for all purposes, assigned the matter to this Department for all purposes, 7 and assigned the case a new case number. Attached hereto as Exhibit A is a tme and correct copy 8 of the October 11,2017 Stipulation and Order Regarding Consolidation. 9 m. PLEADINGS 10 Following the Court's consolidation of the Spears and Arana matters, counsel for Health 11 Net initiated meet and confer discussions with Plaintiffs' counsel regarding their pleadings. 12 Specifically, Health Net's counsel requested that Plaintiffs file a consolidated complaint to help 13 streamline the litigation going forward. As Health Net's counsel explained, it is diffic\ilt to 14 understand how the parties will smoothly litigate this case as one matter when there are two 15 operative complaints at issue. This is especially the case given that the two, complaints allege 16 overlapping claims involving overlapping subclasses covering overlapping periods of time. 17 The complications arisingfromthis overlap have already presented in the context of written 18 discovery. For example, both Plaintiffs have sought the identities of putative class members and 19 the parties have agreed to the use of one opt-out notice. However, given the ambiguity that has 20 resulted due to the overlap in subclasses, the parties have not been able to reach an agreement as to 21 who, exactiy, should receive the notice. See Section V.B. below. Having one consolidated 22 complaint that defines the putative classes for this onfe consolidated action only makes sense. 23 With respect to motion practice, a consolidated complaint will also streamline matters - not 24 only for the parties but also the Court. For example, should Health Net determine that this matter 25 is suitable for disposition on summary judgment must it bring two separate motions?^ Given the 26 overlap of claims, subclasses and periods of time described above, it would seem that the answer 27 28 ^ As Health Net notes below, it believes that Plaintiff Spears' and Plaintiff Arana's regular rate and rounding claims are susceptible to summary adjudication. OHSUSA:767725203.5 -3- DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 would have to be "yes." Otherwise, how will the parties and the Court be able to determine whether 2 any given cause of action should be dismissed in its entirety? 3 This quandary is even further exacerbated should this matter survive stmmiary judgment 4 and proceed to trial. If the parties themselves have become confiised by who is included in the 5 putative class, then how is a jury to understand who are in the putative classes and who are not? 6 Issues presented by the overlap aside, there are other practical reasons why Plaintiffs should 7 file a consolidated complakit. As Health Net's counsel also noted during the parties' meet and 8 confer, consolidation would permit Plaintiffs the opportunity to clarify their pleadings. 9 Specifically, Plaintiff Spears' FAC is vajgue and ambiguous with regard to her regular rate claim 10 and Plaintiff Arana states in his Complaint that he purports to represent employees Health Net does 11 not and has not ever employed. 12 Notwithstanding coimsel's meet and confer discussions, Plaintiffs elected not to file an 13 amended complaint. Health Net proposes consideration of this matter at the Case Management 14 Conference and requests that the Court order Plaintiffs to file a single complaint consolidating their 15 claims. 16 IV. HEALTH NET'S CONTENTIONS 17 A. Class Certification 18 Health Net contends that Plaintiffs will be unable to certify a class, or any of the proposed 19 subclasses. This case involves a complicated patchwork of alleged subclasses and certification 20 theories attempting to sweep in thousands of putative class members in hundreds of different job 21 titles over the course of over four years during which Health Net has undergone a shift in ownership 22 and, as a result, change in certain relevant policies and procedures. Adjudication of Plaintiffs' 23 claims on a class-wide basis is simply untenable. 24 For example, with respect to the putative subclass of non-exempt employees, at all relevant 25 times. Health Net maintained legally compliant policies regarding hourly compensation, recording 26 of time worked and breaks taken, provision of meal and rest breaks, calculation of employees' 27 regular rate of pay for purposes of overtime compensation, payment of wages at termination and 28 provision of wage statements. Individualized inquiries are necessary to determine whether any OHSUSA:76772S203.5 ' 4 " DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 employee was not provided compliant meal or rest breaks or premiimis or properly waived them, 2 was due unpaid wages including overtime, received correct wage statements and/or was injured by 3 these wage statements, and/or did not receive all wages due at termination. This is especially tme 4 given that putative class members worked at different locations, for different employers, under 5 differenttimekeepingsystems, in a plethora of different positions with varjang job requirements, 6 under different supervisors and under different working conditions - e.g., even Health Net's two 7 call centers vary in services provided and employee responsibilities depending on such things as 8 supervisor preferences and customers serviced. Thus, the circumstances of Plaintiffs' employment 9 when they were non-exempt employees of Health Net differfromthose of other putative class 10 members. Further, the circumstances regarding Plaintiffs' timesheet and timekeeping records 11 dating back to when they were employed by Health Net as non-exempt employees evidence 12 individual differences, including whether they properly recorded their hours and whether and how ,1 13 they followed Health Net's reasonable policies and procedures. To the extent Plaintiffs failed to 14 follow Health Net's timekeeping policies and procedures, they cannot represent employees who 15 did. In fact, in the matter ofShaunetta Eddings v. Health Net, Inc., Central District of Califomia 16 Case No. 2:10-cv-01744-JLS-RZ, the plaintiffs sought to certify meal period and off-the-clock 17 claims brought on behalf of the very same call center employees as Plaintiffs seek to represent here. 18 The Court there refiased to certify these claims for reasons that will likely drive the analysis in this 19 case. 20 Moreover, as to the putative subclass of employees that Plaintiff Arana claims was 21 misclassified as exemjpt, class certification is likewise inappropriate. For example, the work 22 actually performed by Plaintiff Arana as an exempt Call Center Systems Analyst I in any given 23 week varies greatly - not onlyfromthe work actually performed by other Call Center Systems 24 Analysts and other members ofthe "Exempt Class" he purports to represent, but it also varies week 25 by week even for himself For example, the work Plaintiff Arana actually performs as a Call Center 26 Systems Analyst I in any given week depends heavily on such factors as the project on which he is 27 working, how many employees he is supervising on the project, who he reports to for the project, 28 whether he has multiple projects going on at once, and so on. OHSUSA:767725203.S ' ^ ' DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 In terms of the type and substance of work actually performed in any given week, members 2 of the "Exempt Class" vary significantiy. For example, since Plaintiff Arana works in a call center, 3 his overarching duties include making recommendations for and executing improvements to call 4 center policies and procedures. He also serves as a subject matter expert for the call center by 5 researching and helping to address root causes of escalated issues and enstiring timely resolution. 6 Moreover, he takes the lead on various call center projects, identifies requirements for new 7 processes and procedures, and makes recommendations for system enhancements. By contrast, for 8 example. Business Analysts who work in the current G&A Claims Administration department are 9 generally responsible for analyzing claims that have been escalated to the Legal Department for 10 purposes of evaluating the significance, level of exposure and correct outcome of claim 11 adjudication. This process entails reviewing individual claims and making recommendations on 12 the outcomes of the disputes, which are supported by the individual Business Analysts' findings, 13 analysis and data. Business Analysts in this group are tasked with understanding and interpreting 14 the specific terms of the contract at issue in order to make a determination of whether a claim has -15 been processed correctly, and identifying any discrepancies that explain or help resolve the 16 escalation of the matter to Legal. Suffice to say, work actually performed by members of the 17 "Exempt Class" in any given workweek varies greatly. 18 In addition to these variances, if any member of Plaintiff Arana's "Exempt Class" did not 19 spend at least half his or her workweek performing exempt duties, whether that employee's 20 performance was consistent with Health Net's realistic expectations also necessitates an 21 individualized inquiry. 22 These are just some of the reasons why Plaintiffs cannot meet class certification 23 requirements. 24 Health Net suggests that the Court set a deadline for class certification motions that is five 25 months away. 26 B. Merits 27 Certification issues aside. Plaintiffs' allegations are meritless. For instance, Plamtiff 28 Spears' regular rate claim - premised on her theory that "cash" received by her and other non- OHSUSA:767725203.S DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 exempt employees who waived certain coverage under Health Net's health and welfare benefits 2 plan were improperly excludedfromtheir regular rate of pay - is baseless. In fact, these payments 3 were properly excluded from employees' regvdar rate of pay. See 29 U.S.C. § 207(e)(4); see also 4 29 C.F.R. § 778.215. Plaintiffs' other stated groimds for unpaid overtime - namely non-inclusion 5 of nondiscretionary bonuses and shift differentials in their regular rate - are similarly baseless. 6 Indeed, during the relevant time period, the only bonus payments not included in non-exempt 7 employees' regular rates of pay were discretionary. By contrast, all nondiscretionary bonuses 8 payments (and shift differentials) were included. Thus, Plaintiffs' regular rate claims are 9 susceptible to summary adjudication and Health Net intends to file a motion promptly to dispose 10 of tiiem. 11 As for Plaintiff Arana's rounding claim, summary adjudication is also appropriate for the 12 simple fact that Health Net does not round its employees' recorded time for purposes of generating 13 paychecks. Should Plaintiff Arana persist with this claim. Health Net wiU file a dispositive motion. 14 C. PAGA and Manageability 15 For the same reasons outiined above. Health Net contends that Plaintiff Spears is not an 16 aggrieved employee and caimot, therefore, seek to represent others imder the PAGA.^ Moreover, 17 Health Net maintains that any trial of Plaintiff Spears' PAGA claim is unmanageable. To that end, 18 Health Net anticipates bringing a motion challenging Plaintiff Spears' representative action 19 allegations. 20 V. DISCOVERY 21 A. Health Net's Proposed Discovery Plan; Phased Discovery 22 Plaintiff Spears and Plaintiff Arana have separately propounded written discovery on Health 23 Net. Specifically, Plaintiff Spears propounded: 24 • 14 Requests for Admission; 25 • 25 Requests for Production of Documents; 26 • 26 Special Interrogatories; and 27 28 ^ As mentioned above, while Plaintiff Arana attempted to file an amended complaint alleging PAGA claims, the Court rejected his filing. OHSUSA:767725203.5 -7- DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 • One set of Employment Law Form .Interrogatories. 2 Plaintiff Arana propounded: 3 • 15 Requests for Admission; 4 • 31 Requests for Production of Documents; 5 • 2 4 Special Interrogatories; and 6 • One set of Employment Law Form Interrogatories. 7 Not surprisingly in light of the overlapping allegations, some of Plaintiffs' respective •8 discovery overlaps. This notwithstanding, and pursuant to the agreement reached with Plaintiffs' 9 counsel following meet and confer discussions. Health Net will have responded substantively to all 10 class certification-related discovery by the time the Case Management Conference is held."* 11 Just by way of example, as to Plaintiffs' meal break claim. Health Net will have provided 12 its policies governing meal periods in response to Plaintiff Spears' Request for Production No. 7. 13 And, Health Net will have provided a description of its policies and procedures regarding the 14 provision of med breaks in response to Plaintiff Arana's Special Interrogatory No. 14. However, 15 Health Net will not have responded substantively to Plaintiff Spears' Special Interrogatory No. 19 16 seeking the total number of meal period premiums paid to putative class members or Plaintiff 17 Arana's Special Interrogatory No. 17 seeking the total dollar amount in meal period premiums paid 18 to putative class members. 19 Health Net maintains that the latter seek data unrelated to whether any class should be 20 certified, and requests that the Court issue an order phasing discovery on Plaintiffs' meal and rest 21 break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims.^ Health Net believes that bifurcating discovery 22 - limiting thefirstphase of discovery to class certification-related issues on Plaintiffs' meal and 23 rest break, off-the-clock and misclassification claims - will streamline discovery efforts and 24 ultimately save all partiesfromengaging in costly merits-based discovery because Plaintiffs will 25 not be able to satisfy the requirements for class certification on these claims. Indeed, many courts 26 ^ As to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims, however. Health Net will have provided merits- 2y related discovery responses by the time the Case Management Conference is held ia anticipation of its forthcoming summary adjudication motion. 28 ' Pursuant to stipulation, the parties have agreed to extend Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to December 15, 2017 so that the Court may mle on this issue. OHSUSA:767725203.5 -8- DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 recognize the economic benefits of bifiircating discovery and issue orders accordingly per section 2 2019.020(b) oftiie Code of Civil Procedure. 3 B. .gg/fl/re-^gj/Notice 4 As mentioned above, both Plaintiffs sought contact infonnation of putative class members 5 in their written discovery to Health Net. Health Net agreed to provide such information following 6 notice to putative class members of the disclosure and the opportunity for them to opt out, and 7 Plaintiff Spears agreed to cover the cost. Unresolved is the content of the notice. Despite Health 8 Net's counsel's multiple efforts to schedule a meet and confer telephone call with all counsel, such 9 a call has not occurred and all parties have not been able to discuss the content. 10 Plaintiff Spears cut short meet and confer opportunities by filing a "Motion for Order for 11 Opt-Out Privacy Notice To Be Sent To The Class Members" ("Motion") on November 16, 2017. 12 Curiously, she filed her motion in Department 54 before Judge Cadei, even though this matter was 13 assigned to this Court on August 1, 2017, which was later confirmed by the Stipulation and Order 14 signed by all parties and entered by the Court on October 11, 2017. See Exhibit A (reflecting 15 assignment of this matter "for all purposes to Judge Alan G. Perkins, Dept. 35"). 16 Procedural matters aside, logic dictates that this Comt should hear the Motion since it is 17 managing this case. Indeed, Health Net sees no reason why this issue cannot be tackled at the Case 18 Management Conference.^ Health Net believes that Plaintiffsfilinga consolidated complaint (see 19 Section III. above) will solve the "impasse" that Plaintiff Spears claims to need resolution in her 20 Motion. For example, with regard to the language of the proposed Belaire- West Notice identifying 21 the recipients. Plaintiff Spears proposed sending the Notice only to: 22 CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES 2- EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. BETWEEN APRIL 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT 24 See Exhibit B. 25 If she has her way, however, it appears based on the phraseology of Plaintiff Arana's 26 Complaint that the entirety of the "Exempt Class" will not receive the Notice. Health Net fiirther 27. 28 * Health Net anticipates filing and serving its Opposition to the Motion on December 5, 2017. Health Net will provide the Court with a courtesy copy of its opposition brief upon filing. OHSUSA:767725203.5 -9- DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 maintains that the opt-out procedure should only occur once in this matter for many reasons, the 2 least of which is that the burden of undergoing the process twice (or more) completely undercuts 3 the efficiency drivers behind consolidation in the first place. In fact, the parties have agreed that 4 one notice makes the most sense. See, e.g., Exhibit C. To that end. Health Net believes that the 5 appropriate recipients of the Notice are: 6 CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES - EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA., BSC. BETWEEN APRIL 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT 8 AND 9 CURRENT AND FORMER EXEMPT EMPLOYEES ^0 EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNLV, INC. AS ,, BUSINESS ANALYSTS, SYSTEMS ANALYSTS, CONTACT CENTER ANALYSTS AND ANALYSTS BETWEEN APRIL 12 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT 13 Unfortunately, when Health Net's counsel pointed out this issue in meet and confer 14 correspondence, Plaintiff Spears' counsel's only response to this quandary was to offer the 15 following non sequitur: "If it tums out the class is broader than the category as we have identified 16 it, we will revisit the mailing at that time. The motion is attached." iSge Exhibit D. In fact, the 17 putative classes encompass a broader number of individuals, as is obvious when one looks at the 1g Arana and Spears complaints. 19 VI. MEDIATION 20 Health Net is amenable to mediation after the parties have engaged in some additional 21 discovery and motion practice. 22 VII. MOTIONS 23 As mentioned above, Health Net proposes that the Court set afive-monthdeadline for class 24 certification motions to be filed. Health Net intends to file a motion for summary adjudication as 25 to Plaintiffs' regular rate and rounding claims by the end of this month. 26 /// 27 /// 28 OHSUSA:767725203.5 " 1^ DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 Health Net reserves itsrighttofileother motions as it deems necessary and appropriate as 2 the litigation moves forward. 3 Dated: November 27,2017 ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 4 5 TIM0THY J ; L O N G 6 Attori^eysjbr^efemdant HEALTH NETtJFCALIFORNLA, 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHSUSA:767725203.5 - 11 - DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business 3 address is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 400 Capitol Mall, Suite 3000, Saacramento, CA 4 95 814. On November 27,2017,1 served the following document(s): 5 DEFENDANT'S CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE STATEMENT 6 on the interested parties in this action by placing tme and correct copies thereof in 7 sealed envelope(s) addressed as follows: 8 9 Norman B. Blumentiial Phone: (858)551-1223 10 Blumentiial, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik Fax: (858) 551-1232 2255 CaUe Clara 11 La Jolla, CA 92037 12 Setareh Law Group 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 14 " 15 16 I am employed in the coimtyfromwhich the mailing occurred. On the date 17 indicated above, I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing at thisfirm'soffice 1g business address indicated above. I am readily familiar with this firm's practice for the collection 19 and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that 20 practice, thefirm'scorrespondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on 21 this same date with postage thereon fiilly prepaid in the ordinary course of business. 22 23 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the 24 above is tme and correct. 25 ; Executed on November 27,2017, at Sacramento, Califomia. 26 27 ^ -r^'f^^CcrA. yy^ ^ pi^cx- Patricia M. Heath 28 OHSUSA:767097510.1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL Exhibit A 1 TIMOTHY J. LONG (STATE BARNO. 137591) 2 tjlong@orrick.com ORRICK, HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP FILEOj 400 Capitol Mall 3 Suite 3000 Sacramento, CA 95814-4497 OCT 1 1 2017 • 4 Telephone; +1 916 447 9200 Facsimile: +19163294900 5 By D.Lashley, Deputy Clerk : STEPHANIE GAIL LEE (STATE BAR NO. 285379) 6 steiphanie.lee@onick.com ORRICK, I^RINGTON & SUTCLIFFE LLP 7 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200 Los Angeles, California 90017 8 Tel^hone: (213) 629-2020 Facsimile: (213)612-2499 9 Attomeys for Defendant 10 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 11 •** COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS ON NEXT PAGE 12 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 13 COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO 14 15 ANDREA SPEARS, an mdividual, on behalf CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 of herself and on behalf of all posons similarly situated. ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO 16 JUDGE ALAN G. PERKINS, DEPT 35 17 Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND ^ O m S E U l ORDER REGARDING IS CONSOLIDATION HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC., a 19 Califoniia Corporation; and Does 1 through Complaint Filed: April 5,2017 50, inclusive. FAC Filed: June 29,2017 20 Defendants. 21 22 TOMAS R ARANA, on behalf of himself, all CaseJ^a 34^01^00216^ others similarly situated, 23 ASSIGNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO Plaintifis, JUDGE ALAN G, PERKINS, DEPT 35 24 Complaint Filed: August 1,2017 25 HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNL\, INC., a 26 Califomia corporation; and DOES 1-50, 27 inclusive, 28 Defendants. OHSUSA:767303413.3 , STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDINO CONSOLIDATION 1 Notmaa B. Blumen&al (STATE BAR NO. 68687) nomi@bamlawca.com 2 BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK 3 2255 Calle Clara UJolla,CA 92037 4 Phone: (858) 551-1223 Fax: (858) 551-1232 5 Attomeys for Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS 6 7 Shaun Setareh (STATE BARNO. 204514) shaim@setarehlaw.com 8 SETAREH LAW GROUP 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 9 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Phone: (310) 888-7771 10 Fax: (310) 888-0109 11 Attomeys for Plaintiff TOMAS R ARANA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHSUSA:7673034133 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSEDl ORDER REGARDINO CONSOLIDATION WHEREAS, on April 5, 2017, Andrea Spears C'Spears")filedagainst Health Net of 2 California, Inc. ("Health Netf") a Complaint for: (1) Unfair Competition, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 3 17200, et seq.; (2) Faihire to Pay Overtime Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§510, et seq.; (3) Failure to 4 Provide Accurate Itemized W^e Statements, Cal. Labor Code § 226; and (4) Failure to Pay Wages 5 When Due, Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203 (flie "Spears Complaint") in die Siqjerior Court ofthe ,6 State of California, County ofSacramento (this "Court?0, CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560; 7 WHEREAS, on June 15,2017, Spears amended the Spears Complaint to add a claim under 8 Califomia's Private Attomeys General Act, Cal. Labor Code §§ 2698 etseq. (tbe "Spears FAC"); 9 WHEREAS, on August 1, 2017, Tomas R. Aiana ("Arana")filedagainst Health Net a 10 Complamt for: (1) Unfair Competition, Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, etseq.; (2) Failure to Provide 11 Accurate Written Wage Statements, Cal. Labor Code § 226; (3) Failure to Timely Pay All Final 12 Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§ 201-203; (4) Failure to Pay Houriy Wages, Cal. Labor Code §§ 223, 13 510, 1194, 1194.2,1197, 1197.1 and 1198; (5) Failure to Provide Meal Periods, Cal. Labor Code 14 §§ 204,223,226.7, 512, and 1198; and (6) Failure to Provide Rest Periods, Cal. Labor Code §§ 15 204,223,226.7 (tiie "Arana Complaint") in this Court, Case No, 34-2017-00216685; and 16 WHEREAS, Spears, Arana and Health Net (collectively, the 'Tarties") agree that the 17 allegations made in the Spears FAC and the Arana Complaint (the "Pending Actions") mvoive 18 overlappmg questions of law and fact and should be consolidated pursuant to Civil Procedure Code 19 section 1048 in order to avoid repetitive trials, to prevent unnecessary costs and delays, to avoid 20 the substantial risk of inconsistent adjudications and to serve judicial economy. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Ill 28 III OHSUSA:767303413.3, STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDINO CONSOLIDATION 1 NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto, by and among their respective counsel of record, 2 hereby stipulate and agree, subject to flie Coint's appnvai, that flie Pending Actions be 3 consolidated. 4 5 Dated: .,2017 TIMOTHY J.LONG STEPHANIE GAIL LEE 6 Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 7 8 Stephanie Gail Lee 9 Attomeys &r Defendant HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 11 Dated: 12 September , 2017 NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL Blumenflial, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik LLP 12 13 14 Nonnah B. Blumimthal Attomeys for Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS 15 16 Dated: ^2017 SHAUN SETAREH Setareh Law Oroup 17 18 19 Shaun Setareh Attomeys for Plaintiff TOMAS R ARANA 20 21 22: 23; 24; 25 26 27 28 OHSUSA:767303413.3 -4- STIPULATIOW ANP [PROPOSEDl ORMR REOARDINO CONSOLDATION NOW, THEREFORE, the Parties hereto, by and amongttieirrespective counsel of record, hereby stipulate and agr^ subject to flie Court's approval, that flie Pending Actions be consolidated. 4 5 Dated: 12=. .2017 TIMOTHY J.LONG STEPHANIE GAIL LEE 6 Onrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP 7 8 Stephanie Gail Lee 9 Attomej^ for Defendanl HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. 10 11 Dated: _,2017 NORMAN B. BLUMENTHAL Blumentiial, Nordrehaug & Bhowmik LLP 12 13 14 Norman B. Blumenthal Attomeys for Plaintiff ANDREA SPEARS 15 16 Dated: -^eyvV iS' ^2017 SHAUN SETAREH Setareh Law Gioiq) 17 18 19 Shaun Setareh 20 Attorneys for Plaintiff TOMAS R. ARANA 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHSUSA:767303413J .4. STIPULATION AND (PROPOSED] ORPSt REOARniNO C(H«OLIDATION 1 ORDER 2 Good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT flie action entitied Ancb^ea 3 Spears, cm Utdividual, onbehalfofherself and on behalfofall persons similarly situatedv. Health 4 Net of Califorma, Inc., CaseNo. 34-2017-00210560 is hereby consolidated withflieaction entitied 5 Tomas R. Arana, on behalfofhimself, all others similarly situated v. Health Net ofCalifornia, Inc., 6 Case No. 34-2017-00216685. 7 8 Dated: P^rMmi^ I / , 2017 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 OHSUSA'7673Q3413.3 5- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION 1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 2 I am more than eighteen years old and not a party to this action. My business 3 address is Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP, 777 South Figueroa Street, Suite 3200, Los 4 Angeles, CA 90017-5855. On September 18,2017,1 served the following document: 5 STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER REGARDING CONSOLIDATION 6 on the mterested parties in this action by placing tme and correct copies thereof in sealed 7 envelope(s) addressed as follows: 8 Norman B. Blumenthal, Esq. Shaun Setareh, Esq. BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK SETAREH L A W GROUP 9 2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 907 10 La JoUa, CA 92037 Beverly Hills. CA 90212 Phone: (858)551-1223 Tel: (310) 888-7771 11 Fax: (858)551-1232 12 I am employed in the countyfromwhich the mailing occurred, On the date 13 indicated above, I placed the sealed envelope(s) for collection and mailing at thisfirm'soffice 14 business address indicated above. I ara readily familiar with thisfirm'spractice for the collection 15 and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. Under that 16 practice, the firm's correspondence would be deposited with the United States Postal Service on 17 this same date with postage thereon fiilly prepaid in the ordinary course ofbusiness. 18 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws ofthe State of Califomia that the 19 above is tme and correct. 20 Executed on September 18,2017, at Los Angeles, Califomia. 21 22 23 24 25 :26 :27 28 OHSUSA:767387898:1 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAtU Exhibit B NOTICE TO CURRENT AND FORMER EMPLOYEES OF HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. REGARDING DISCLOSURE OF PRIVATE INFORMATION To: CURRENT AND FORMER NON-EXEMPT EMPLOYEES EMPLOYED BY HEALTH NET OF CALIFORNIA, INC. BETWEEN APRIL 5,2013 AND THE PRESENT Two lawsuits {Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. and Arana v. Health Net of California, consolidated case no. 34-2017-00210560) have been filed and are pending in the Superior Court ofCalifomia, County of Sacramento on behalf of current and former non-exempt employees ("Class Members") employed by Health Net of Califomia, Inc. ("Defendant"). This is not a lawsuit against you, and you are not being sued. The former employees ("Plaintiffs") make claims against Defendant for, among other things, failing to calculate the regular rate of pay and compensate Class Members for all overtime worked, failing to provide required meal and rest periods, and failing to issue accurate itemized wage statements. The lawsuit seeks unpaid wages, penalties and interest. This correspondence is being sent to you pursuant to an agreement reached between the Plaintiffs and Defendant. The Court does not endorse any of the statements contained herein. The Court has not rendered any opinion as to the merits of this case. The Plaintiffs contend that this lawsuit can be brought as a class action on behalf of themselves and the current and former non-exempt employees who were employed by Defendant. The Court has not yet determined whether the lawsuit should be allowed to be maintained as a class action. Ifyou receive this notice, you may be a member ofthe proposed class. Plaintiffs' attorneys would like to have your address, telephone number and email address so they may contact you to obtain your input as to whether the Plaintiffs' allegations are accurate. The Parties have agreed that a letter be sent to you to determine if you would object to Plaintiffs' attorneys receiving your contact, time and payroll information. You may elect not to provide your contact, time and/or payroll information to Plaintiffs' attorneys on the grounds of privacy. THEREFORE, if you object to the disclosure of your contact, time and/or payroll information to the Plaintiffs attorneys, you must sign and return the enclosed (postage pre-paid) postcard to Health Net of California Class Action, c/o KCC Class Action Services, P.O. Box , Petaluma, California on or before [One (1) Month from Mailing]. You have the right to contact the Plaintiffs' attomeys directly: BLUMENTHAL, NORDREHAUG & BHOWMIK SETAREH LAW GROUP Nicholas De Blouw Shaun Setareh deblouw(fl),bam lawl i .com shaun(g!setarehlaw.com 2255 Calle Clara 9454 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 907 La Jolla, CA 92037 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Telephone: (858)952-0354 Telephone: (310) 888-7771 Facsimile: (858) 551-1232 Facsimile: (310) 888-0109 Attomeys for Plaintiff Spears Attomeys for Plaintiff Arana Please note that Defendant's attomeys, as representatives of Defendant employer in this matter, have a conflict of interest with you as an employee and potential Class Member. Exhibit C Lee, Stephanie Gail From: Shaun Setareh Sent: Wednesday, October 25, 20T7 12:37 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail; 'Victoria Rivapalacio' Cc: Long, Timothy J.; 'Norm Blumenthal'; 'Kyle Nordrehaug'; 'AJ B"; 'Piya Mukherjee'; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie: Thank you for the e-mail. We have recently served our own discovery; which seeks the class list. I think it makes sense to send one omnibus notice to the class. As to whether discovery should be phased; I amfineto deferring that particular issue until after the status conference. 1 presume that we will file one stipulated protective order. Please advise. Thank you, s E T :/t E H Shaun Setareh, Esq. 9454 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 907 Beveriy Hills, Califomia 90212 Telephone: 310-888-7771 Facsimile: 310-888-0109 e-mail: shaun(S).setarehlaw.com Intemet sites: www.Setarehlaw.com. www.TerminationAttomev.net: From: Lee, Stephanie Gail [mailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 24,2017 5:08 PM To: Victoria Rivapalacio ; Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal ; Kyle Nordrehaug ; AJ B ; Piya Mukherjee ; thomas@setarehlaw.com; scott@setarehlaw.com; farrah@setarehlaw.com; stacey@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Victoria, Thank you for your message. Yes, Defendant will serve supplemental responses to Plaintiff Spears' discovery it deems appropriate at this juncture ofthe litigation. As to the issue ofthe discovery relevant to class cert'rfication versus merits, we agreed to raise the issue with the Court at the initial case management conference on December 8, 2017. Confirmed that Defendant agrees to continue Plaintiff Spears' motion to compel deadline to December 15, 2017. Because, Shaun, you were not on this telephone call, still outstanding is the issue of coordinating discovery. This is important, particularly with respect to the Belaire-West notice procedure. On that note, I will circulate a draft protective order and edits to Plaintiff Spears' draft Belaire-West notice. However, we should discuss how we're going to coordinate. Regards, Stephanie Stephanie Gail Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles (v) T+1-213-612-2374 Stephanie.lee@orricl<.com orrick From: Victoria Rivapalacio fmailto:victoria@bamlawca.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:45 PM To: Lee, Stephanie Gail : Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. : Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@seta reh law.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. Stephanie, I write to confirm that we met and conferred this afternoon regarding Defendant's responses to Plaintiffs discovery requests. Defendant offered to continue Plaintiffs motion to compel deadline from December 1, 2017 to December 15, 2017, a week after the Case Management Conference. Defendant is in the process of drafting supplemental responses, but will not provide a timeline as to when those will be provided. Defendant will circulate a draft of a protective order and will return the opt-out notice reflecting any revisions it might have. Plaintiff agrees to pay for the costs of the mailing. Thank you, Victoria From: Lee, Stephanie Gail fmailto:stephanie.lee@orrick.com1 Sent: Tuesday, October 24,2017 9:57 AM To: Victoria Rivapalacio : Shaun Setareh Cc: Long, Timothy J. ; Norm Blumenthal : Kyle Nordrehaug : AJ B : Piya Mukherjee : thomas@setarehlaw.com: scott@setarehlaw.com: farrah@setarehlaw.com: stacev@setarehlaw.com Subject: RE: Spears v. Health Net of California, Inc. We can use this conference line: 1-877-211-3621; passcode 295938. Stephanie Gall Lee Managing Associate Orrick Los Angeles ® T+1-213-612-2374 Stephanie.lee@orrick.corTi orrick From: Victoria Rivapalacio [mailto:victoria@b